On Mon, 2011-01-31 at 14:58 -0500, Tom Lane wrote: > Simon Riggs <si...@2ndquadrant.com> writes: > > On Mon, 2011-01-31 at 11:24 -0500, Robert Haas wrote: > >> , or to use a new > >> error code. ERRCODE_ADMIN_SHUTDOWN is just strange. > > > It's not strange at all. It's the same error code as we use for all of > > the other cases listed. We need that because it is the current > > catch-all errcode for "cannot retry". > > > The purpose of errcodes is to allow programs to check them and then act. > > It's pointless to add a new errcode that is so rare that nobody will > > ever program for it because they won't expect it, let alone test for it. > > Or at least won't assign any sensible priority to handling that error. > > The trouble with ERRCODE_ADMIN_SHUTDOWN is that it might lead a > connection pooler to expect that *all* its connections are going bad, > not just the ones that are connected to a specific database. I think > this is a bad decision. Programs that are interested in testing for this > case at all are likely to need to be worried about that distinction.
That's a reasonable argument. My objection to a new code is only to one that is so specific that people have to program for ERRCODE_BLUE_MOON_ON_A_LEAP_YEAR. Can we invent a new "catch-all" that might be used here? Something that means "unknown operational error, not sure what to do". ERRCODE_ADMIN_OTHER or ERRCODE_ADMIN_UNCLASSIFIED. > Also, while I believe that ERRCODE_T_R_DEADLOCK_DETECTED is a reasonable > catchall retry code, I don't think it's equally sane to think that > ERRCODE_ADMIN_SHUTDOWN is a catchall non-retry code. -- Simon Riggs http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/books/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training and Services -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
